That's about the estimate I've seen (60-80 million). When you look at the number of gun-related deaths (search cdc.gov), you find that about 0.01% of gun owners are killing people with guns each year.
So 99.99% of gun owners are not killing people with their guns each year. Guns are not the problem.
How many operational tanks do the American people own and operate?
How many Apache Helicopters to we the American people own and operate?
Fighter Jets? I don't know anyone that owns one of those... do you? Do they have an endless supply of missiles and bombs?
How many c-130 Specter Gunships do you and you 2nd amendment buddies own? Cause the US Government owns a lot of them...
Yeah we got the US Government shaking in it's combat boots cause we have a lot of pistols and rifles...
How many operational tanks did the Viet Cong have? How many Apache Helicopters did they have? How many fighter jets? They kicked the shit out of the same army you're referring to, and they did it without any of that stuff.
How many operational tanks did the Viet Cong have? How many Apache Helicopters did they have? How many fighter jets? They kicked the shit out of the same army you're referring to, and they did it without any of that stuff.
You need to learn a little more about Vietnam and how we "lost". There wernt any tanks in Vietnam... and if we had them on the ground as well as Apaches and C-130 gunships it would have been a different story. Looks like you need to brush up on your military knowledge too. Nice try though...
You need to learn a little more about Vietnam and how we "lost". There wernt any tanks in Vietnam... and if we had them on the ground as well as Apaches and C-130 gunships it would have been a different story. Looks like you need to brush up on your military knowledge too. Nice try though...
:rolleyes:
lol what? They had tons of bombs, fighter jets, and attack helicopters in Vietnam. You're saying it'd be totally different if they had tanks? haha
You need to learn a little more about Vietnam and how we "lost". There wernt any tanks in Vietnam... and if we had them on the ground as well as Apaches and C-130 gunships it would have been a different story. Looks like you need to brush up on your military knowledge too. Nice try though...
:rolleyes:
We did have tanks in Vietnam. It's just that they were generally ineffective and mostly not utilized due to the terrain and type of conflict. If you've seen Full Metal Jacket, there's a scene where we're entering a town with M-60 tanks leading the column. And we didn't have Apaches, but towards the end of the war we had Cobra gunships.
We did have tanks in Vietnam. It's just that they were generally ineffective and mostly not utilized due to the terrain and type of conflict. If you've seen Full Metal Jacket, there's a scene where we're entering a town with M-60 tanks leading the column. And we didn't have Apaches, but towards the end of the war we had Cobra gunships.
I think most of the "gun control" advocates in this country aren't trying to say we need to get rid of all guns. That's just a scare tactic the NRA and other such groups like to use to get the average gun-totin', god-fearin' citizen up in arms. People who have always voted Dem voted for Bush in the last few elections because of this issue, especially in key battleground states like Ohio and Missouri. Blue collar type folks. It is obvious something needs to be done. At the very least it should be made much more difficult to purchase a handgun, IMO. I will vote against any politician who tries to take away hunting type guns, but not handguns.
lol what? They had tons of bombs, fighter jets, and attack helicopters in Vietnam. You're saying it'd be totally different if they had tanks? haha
Look, I'm not going to argue the Vietnam war with someone who knows nothing about it. But equating the Vietnam to a revolution in the States in modern times is asinine. Like pretty much any argument that is ANTI gun control.
Look, I'm not going to argue the Vietnam war with someone who knows nothing about it. But equating the Vietnam to a revolution in the States in modern times is asinine. Like pretty much any argument that is ANTI gun control.
Whatever dude...you made the equation for us by basically saying it's too hard for people to defeat a force that has tanks, bombs, fighter jets, attack helicopters, etc...I just gave an example of that happening. It's definitely comparable to modern day.
You are mistaken, the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from tyranny of anykind, not just England. Plus the right to defend your family and your property.
Have you ever thought that it is the 2nd amendment. The only other amendment that was more important is the first amendment (freedom of speech). That, in and of itself should show you how important it really is.........
Having handguns and rifles will not protect us from tyranny that includes planes, tanks, missiles, nuclear bombs, etc.
The right to own a handgun really has lost its original meaning.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
A gun won't protect you from propaganda, brainwashing and fear. You might think your government is right, they wouldn't have to take away your guns when you're with them.
A tyrannical government rarely exists without support from (part of) the people.
Whose point are you proving, Collin?
Seems that a lot of people on here are being brainwashed by the government, and they think it is on their side.
They both want guncontrol.
So, looks like they already have the people's support for tyrrany.
It just so happens, that it is a bit the inverse of what your original thought was.
Get enough people to agree that they don't need or deserve guns ... add one pinch of gun control ... bingo ... instant fascist dictatorship.
... and to all those referencing vietnam ...
DON'T FORGET THE NAPALM!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I really do not think our goverment would ever try to wipe us out for any reason what so ever. Its silly to even think that.
However, I believe in the right to own guns. I have a three and I feel safe having them. People who say its wrong to own them have never had there house broken into like I have. And I live in a upper middleclass neighborhood. The guy was hiding in our daughters bedroom before she was born when my wife came home. Thank god he ran out while she was upstairs.
Long story.
Point is, I will always own guns. I do not ever want to be in a situation where I need to protect myself or my family and not have the tools to do it.
No law would ever stop me from protecting my family period.
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Having handguns and rifles will not protect us from tyranny that includes planes, tanks, missiles, nuclear bombs, etc.
The right to own a handgun really has lost its original meaning.
That is absolutely wrong, and the truth is shown every day in Iraq. The insurgents with their small arms have created a ton of chaos. Our government thought we could march right in and force a new way of life down their throats. Years later it is only just starting to get under control in areas. It is amazing that a motivated and armed populace can do against a well equiped, but probably unmotivated army.
And the type of tyrany we're talking about here will not be carried out with nukes and missles. It would be something more subtle until people took up arms, at which point the government response would be to send it troops, not nukes. Of course a nuke beats a handgun. But that isn't even close to the issue.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
That is absolutely wrong, and the truth is shown every day in Iraq. The insurgents with their small arms have created a ton of chaos. Our government thought we could march right in and force a new way of life down their throats. Years later it is only just starting to get under control in areas. It is amazing that a motivated and armed populace can do against a well equiped, but probably unmotivated army.
And the type of tyrany we're talking about here will not be carried out with nukes and missles. It would be something more subtle until people took up arms, at which point the government response would be to send it troops, not nukes. Of course a nuke beats a handgun. But that isn't even close to the issue.
"Insurgents with their small arms" understates the fact the automatic weapons are prolific and easily accessible and IED's are killing around two soldiers a day in Iraq. It's more than a bunch of pissed off locals and their shotguns.
you know, it would be nice if once, just once the pro-gun/death folks could wait at least 24 f-n hours after a gun tragedy to spew their propaganda....
you know, it would be nice if once, just once the pro-gun/death folks could wait at least 24 f-n hours after a gun tragedy to spew their propaganda....
oh quit crying, Mr. Bleeding Heart.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That is absolutely wrong, and the truth is shown every day in Iraq. The insurgents with their small arms have created a ton of chaos. Our government thought we could march right in and force a new way of life down their throats. Years later it is only just starting to get under control in areas. It is amazing that a motivated and armed populace can do against a well equiped, but probably unmotivated army.
And the type of tyrany we're talking about here will not be carried out with nukes and missles. It would be something more subtle until people took up arms, at which point the government response would be to send it troops, not nukes. Of course a nuke beats a handgun. But that isn't even close to the issue.
But the US COULD wipe them off the mat here if they really wanted to and those small arms would be useless.
I don't see how you seem to be so sure of how the government would act.
I maintain that the right to bear small arms is meaningless.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
blablabla vast array of bs numbers blablabla chest thumping against opression blabla freedom isn't free
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends.
I know you didn't right that thing but come on. Listing numbers and dates doesn't make an argument correct. First of all most of the numbers are wrong (that's maybe why there is no source?), second of all having a gun control does not equate having a fascist dictatorship : for each of the examples you give there are 2 countries who went for gun control and ended up nicely. Third of all using death rates during world wars means nothing, well because people died outside their countries (this is especially meaningful for your germany and soviet union examples).
The only point your list actually manages to make is that spewing numbers without giving your sources takes all credibility away from your original point (especially for the australian example)
You are totally right. Every student and teacher should have a gun to prevent shit like this. Of course, pay no mind to the fact the killer wants to die himself so the thought of being killed won't stop him. Even better, he'd already have a gun ready.
And the best part, if he starts shooting in a crowded area (such as a university college) there will be students with guns everywhere shooting at him (or at each other, because in midst of all that chaos who really knows who was the original killer).
Brilliant plan.
Excellent point. In my memories high school was a passionate time when fights were quite common. Having schools filled with gun wielding teenagers high on testosterone doesn't seem like the smartest idea.
Having handguns and rifles will not protect us from tyranny that includes planes, tanks, missiles, nuclear bombs, etc.
The right to own a handgun really has lost its original meaning.
That is what I have always thought. The US defense budget is insane and the amount of crazy hightech crap they have is almost unreal. If the government decided to turn that on its citizens (which is difficult to believe to begin with guns or no guns) a bunch of guys with guns aren't really going to stop anything. I mean they have unmanned flying drones with missles that can blow up your house, and even if somone does shoot one of those down with a hunting rifle, they have the money to make thousands more.
They have the ability to print notes of debt.
Debt based on OUR ability to repay with labor\effort.
If the government turned on the people, the people would (hopefuly) stop paying taxes ...
even without the withholding of tax revenue, the only "money" they have is a printing press that, everytime it runs, devalues the current coin in circulation.
There is no endless supply of money!
The more you print the less it is all worth. It is zero sum.
And you think that just MAYBE the people working in the ammunition\weapons factories might have a conscience and quit if they realized the government was using those arms to oppress their very own sons and daughters?
And a well armed populace is still SOME defense against a tyranical government. You can't argue that. It IS a defense, and it IS a constitutional right.
To argue THAT is just silly, not the opposite.
The fact that the people MAY lose is not relevant, imho ...
and imho, still, the people significantly outnumber the troops and arms of the "government" ...
and remember troops are still US Citizens with a sworn oath to uphold the constitution ...
some\many of them at some point would realize that what they were doing is fucked up, and would switch sides to be with their own.
Either way, there are far more people with guns than government soldiers. And they can't have all their tanks everywhere. Get the jist?
Sure they could nuke us, but there would be a fucking lynch mob in washington by morning.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Why are people against Gun CONTROL. Control is the key word. I never have heard an American Politician ever claim they want to take away guns. They want to have better regulations to help ensure crazy dangerous people can't go to there local Walmart and have a gun in there hands in a couple of days. Having a gun should not be a right. It should be a privilage. Cho from VTECH should have NEVER gotten a gun with all of the Psychological problems he had. Gun Control could have saved all of those VTECH lives.
Please someone, anyone explain why CONTROLLING not taking away guns is bad?
Also there are no need for automatic weapons or armor piercing bullets to protect your family. Those do more harm then good.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Why are people against Gun CONTROL. Control is the key word.
Because in 40 some threads on this damn message board, i have yet (even after asking for specifics) heard anyone actualy suggest what the fuck they mean by "gun control" ... and i said ... SPECIFICALY!
So lay it out for me ...
what mental illnesses would leave you legaly unable to own a gun?
how long should you have to wait?
Who decides what "crazy" is, and who is and isn't?
What will be on these "rigorous" tests administered before you are allowed to buy a gun?
Who will pay the administrative costs?
Answer any of this, and you guys may have a leg to stand on, but i doubt it.
People screaming for gun control don't even know what the fuck they realy want, or how the fuck it would realy work ... they just want the government to save them from the possibility of death, and they are willing to give up essential liberty to secure that (see my signature).
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
They have the ability to print notes of debt.
Debt based on OUR ability to repay with labor\effort.
Isn't most of the US military budget already being paid for on credit. How's paying back that debt going now? But other countries seem to still have no problem loaning out money.
Isn't most of the US military budget already being paid for on credit. How's paying back that debt going now? But other countries seem to still have no problem loaning out money.
The point is that their ability to purchase is based on their "credit rating", more or less.
Since we don't have hard currency, the value of the dollars they are using to purchase weapons with is 100% dependent on faith in the government, and on the amount of money they keep printing.
Understand that?
Faith in the government?
What do you think will happen to the value of the dollar if the world understands that the US is on a rampant spending spree, printing up worthless paper to secure weapons to kill\oppress their citizens with?
Faith in the governments ability to repay?
You think anyone will have any?
No.
The value of the dollar would be immediately in the shitter.
I mean, BIG TIME.
Like probable immenent economic\monetary collapse.
What is the government going to use to secure arms at that point?
The gold in Fort Knox?
There is none.
Brute force?
Oh. Okay. They will just storm the Lockheed facilities and secure them.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Because in 40 some threads on this damn message board, i have yet (even after asking for specifics) heard anyone actualy suggest what the fuck they mean by "gun control" ... and i said ... SPECIFICALY!
So lay it out for me ...
what mental illnesses would leave you legaly unable to own a gun?
how long should you have to wait?
Who decides what "crazy" is, and who is and isn't?
What will be on these "rigorous" tests administered before you are allowed to buy a gun?
Who will pay the administrative costs?
Answer any of this, and you guys may have a leg to stand on, but i doubt it.
People screaming for gun control don't even know what the fuck they realy want, or how the fuck it would realy work ... they just want the government to save them from the possibility of death, and they are willing to give up essential liberty to secure that (see my signature).
There are already pretty rigorous tests for being able to drive a car. And it all those tests the onus is on the driver to prove they are capable of being able to drive. And if you have a medical condition that might make it unsafe for you to drive a car (seizures) it is up to you to prove that medical conditions won't effect your driving. Why shouldn't it be the same for gun ownership if you have a medical condition (some mental illness) that might effect how you handle a gun it should be up to you (letter from medical health professional) to certify that it won't effect you.
As far as paying for it, licensing fees pay for things like that for drivers why can't the same thing work for gun owners. All of your questions are pretty much "its hard so we better not do it".
Comments
Just to piggyback on this..
That's about the estimate I've seen (60-80 million). When you look at the number of gun-related deaths (search cdc.gov), you find that about 0.01% of gun owners are killing people with guns each year.
So 99.99% of gun owners are not killing people with their guns each year. Guns are not the problem.
You need to learn a little more about Vietnam and how we "lost". There wernt any tanks in Vietnam... and if we had them on the ground as well as Apaches and C-130 gunships it would have been a different story. Looks like you need to brush up on your military knowledge too. Nice try though...
:rolleyes:
We did have tanks in Vietnam. It's just that they were generally ineffective and mostly not utilized due to the terrain and type of conflict. If you've seen Full Metal Jacket, there's a scene where we're entering a town with M-60 tanks leading the column. And we didn't have Apaches, but towards the end of the war we had Cobra gunships.
Oh so if it was in a movie then... :rolleyes:
Nah man, it's true, I've talked to guys who were there. I was just pointing out it was in that movie.
Look, I'm not going to argue the Vietnam war with someone who knows nothing about it. But equating the Vietnam to a revolution in the States in modern times is asinine. Like pretty much any argument that is ANTI gun control.
OK so now you've talked to people that were there... I guess that IS a better source than Full Metal Jacket...
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, so I thought I'd post this.
http://www.honorourvets.org/M60Tank.htm
Like I said, they weren't very effective, but they were used.
Having handguns and rifles will not protect us from tyranny that includes planes, tanks, missiles, nuclear bombs, etc.
The right to own a handgun really has lost its original meaning.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Whose point are you proving, Collin?
Seems that a lot of people on here are being brainwashed by the government, and they think it is on their side.
They both want guncontrol.
So, looks like they already have the people's support for tyrrany.
It just so happens, that it is a bit the inverse of what your original thought was.
Get enough people to agree that they don't need or deserve guns ... add one pinch of gun control ... bingo ... instant fascist dictatorship.
... and to all those referencing vietnam ...
DON'T FORGET THE NAPALM!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
However, I believe in the right to own guns. I have a three and I feel safe having them. People who say its wrong to own them have never had there house broken into like I have. And I live in a upper middleclass neighborhood. The guy was hiding in our daughters bedroom before she was born when my wife came home. Thank god he ran out while she was upstairs.
Long story.
Point is, I will always own guns. I do not ever want to be in a situation where I need to protect myself or my family and not have the tools to do it.
No law would ever stop me from protecting my family period.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
That is absolutely wrong, and the truth is shown every day in Iraq. The insurgents with their small arms have created a ton of chaos. Our government thought we could march right in and force a new way of life down their throats. Years later it is only just starting to get under control in areas. It is amazing that a motivated and armed populace can do against a well equiped, but probably unmotivated army.
And the type of tyrany we're talking about here will not be carried out with nukes and missles. It would be something more subtle until people took up arms, at which point the government response would be to send it troops, not nukes. Of course a nuke beats a handgun. But that isn't even close to the issue.
"Insurgents with their small arms" understates the fact the automatic weapons are prolific and easily accessible and IED's are killing around two soldiers a day in Iraq. It's more than a bunch of pissed off locals and their shotguns.
oh quit crying, Mr. Bleeding Heart.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
But the US COULD wipe them off the mat here if they really wanted to and those small arms would be useless.
I don't see how you seem to be so sure of how the government would act.
I maintain that the right to bear small arms is meaningless.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Well i guess the pro-gun folks can all thank god that the people who wrote our constitution strongly disagreed with you.
ps - look down at my signature.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I know you didn't right that thing but come on. Listing numbers and dates doesn't make an argument correct. First of all most of the numbers are wrong (that's maybe why there is no source?), second of all having a gun control does not equate having a fascist dictatorship : for each of the examples you give there are 2 countries who went for gun control and ended up nicely. Third of all using death rates during world wars means nothing, well because people died outside their countries (this is especially meaningful for your germany and soviet union examples).
The only point your list actually manages to make is that spewing numbers without giving your sources takes all credibility away from your original point (especially for the australian example)
Excellent point. In my memories high school was a passionate time when fights were quite common. Having schools filled with gun wielding teenagers high on testosterone doesn't seem like the smartest idea.
That is what I have always thought. The US defense budget is insane and the amount of crazy hightech crap they have is almost unreal. If the government decided to turn that on its citizens (which is difficult to believe to begin with guns or no guns) a bunch of guys with guns aren't really going to stop anything. I mean they have unmanned flying drones with missles that can blow up your house, and even if somone does shoot one of those down with a hunting rifle, they have the money to make thousands more.
No they don't.
They have the ability to print notes of debt.
Debt based on OUR ability to repay with labor\effort.
If the government turned on the people, the people would (hopefuly) stop paying taxes ...
even without the withholding of tax revenue, the only "money" they have is a printing press that, everytime it runs, devalues the current coin in circulation.
There is no endless supply of money!
The more you print the less it is all worth. It is zero sum.
And you think that just MAYBE the people working in the ammunition\weapons factories might have a conscience and quit if they realized the government was using those arms to oppress their very own sons and daughters?
And a well armed populace is still SOME defense against a tyranical government. You can't argue that. It IS a defense, and it IS a constitutional right.
To argue THAT is just silly, not the opposite.
The fact that the people MAY lose is not relevant, imho ...
and imho, still, the people significantly outnumber the troops and arms of the "government" ...
and remember troops are still US Citizens with a sworn oath to uphold the constitution ...
some\many of them at some point would realize that what they were doing is fucked up, and would switch sides to be with their own.
Either way, there are far more people with guns than government soldiers. And they can't have all their tanks everywhere. Get the jist?
Sure they could nuke us, but there would be a fucking lynch mob in washington by morning.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Please someone, anyone explain why CONTROLLING not taking away guns is bad?
Also there are no need for automatic weapons or armor piercing bullets to protect your family. Those do more harm then good.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Because in 40 some threads on this damn message board, i have yet (even after asking for specifics) heard anyone actualy suggest what the fuck they mean by "gun control" ... and i said ... SPECIFICALY!
So lay it out for me ...
what mental illnesses would leave you legaly unable to own a gun?
how long should you have to wait?
Who decides what "crazy" is, and who is and isn't?
What will be on these "rigorous" tests administered before you are allowed to buy a gun?
Who will pay the administrative costs?
Answer any of this, and you guys may have a leg to stand on, but i doubt it.
People screaming for gun control don't even know what the fuck they realy want, or how the fuck it would realy work ... they just want the government to save them from the possibility of death, and they are willing to give up essential liberty to secure that (see my signature).
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Isn't most of the US military budget already being paid for on credit. How's paying back that debt going now? But other countries seem to still have no problem loaning out money.
The point is that their ability to purchase is based on their "credit rating", more or less.
Since we don't have hard currency, the value of the dollars they are using to purchase weapons with is 100% dependent on faith in the government, and on the amount of money they keep printing.
Understand that?
Faith in the government?
What do you think will happen to the value of the dollar if the world understands that the US is on a rampant spending spree, printing up worthless paper to secure weapons to kill\oppress their citizens with?
Faith in the governments ability to repay?
You think anyone will have any?
No.
The value of the dollar would be immediately in the shitter.
I mean, BIG TIME.
Like probable immenent economic\monetary collapse.
What is the government going to use to secure arms at that point?
The gold in Fort Knox?
There is none.
Brute force?
Oh. Okay. They will just storm the Lockheed facilities and secure them.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
There are already pretty rigorous tests for being able to drive a car. And it all those tests the onus is on the driver to prove they are capable of being able to drive. And if you have a medical condition that might make it unsafe for you to drive a car (seizures) it is up to you to prove that medical conditions won't effect your driving. Why shouldn't it be the same for gun ownership if you have a medical condition (some mental illness) that might effect how you handle a gun it should be up to you (letter from medical health professional) to certify that it won't effect you.
As far as paying for it, licensing fees pay for things like that for drivers why can't the same thing work for gun owners. All of your questions are pretty much "its hard so we better not do it".